Sexual Assault, College, and its Causes

• The Association of American Universities on Monday released the overall results of a survey that asked students at 27 universities about their experiences with sexual assault and sexual misconduct, drawing responses from more than 150,000 students. 

• More than 20 percent of female undergraduates at an array of prominent universities said this year they were victims of sexual assault and misconduct, echoing findings elsewhere, according to one of the largest studies ever of college sexual violence.

• The survey found that 23 percent of undergraduate women and 5 percent of undergraduate men said they were victims of non-consensual sexual contact – ranging from penetration to sexual touching — due to force or incapacitation. Eleven percent of undergraduate women said they were victims of non-consensual penetration or attempted penetration… 20 percent of students said sexual assault and misconduct is very or extremely problematic on their own campus.

What can account for this epidemic? One thoughtful respondent appropriately commented:

• I don't for a minute want to minimize the roll that drunkenness plays in campus sexual assaults, but drunkenness on college campuses is not new… What is new on college campuses across the nation, as a result of the explosive growth of the World Wide Web, is college facilitated access to a "smorgasbord" of hardcore pornography that depicts the abuse, degradation, and exploitation of females. 

However true this might be, there is also another consideration. The normalization of almost any form of sexual acting-act is routinely promoted. In a New York Times Op-Ed, Charles M. Blow glowingly affirmed Miley Cyrus’ statements:

• “I’m very open about it — I’m pansexual.”

• I am literally open to every single thing that is consenting and doesn’t involve an animal and everyone is of age. Everything that’s legal, I’m down with. Yo, I’m down with any adult — anyone over the age of 18 who is down to love me.”

For Blow, these statements represent what sexuality should be about – “casual,”  “carefree,” and non-judgmental sex.

• There was something about the casual, carefree-ness of the statements that I found both charming and revolutionary. It took a happy-go-lucky sledgehammer to the must-fit-a-box binary that constrains and restricts our understanding of the complexity of human sexuality.

Since the NYT doesn’t discuss the down-side of the sexual revolution, we can assume that they too regard uncommitted sex as something that should be fun, playful, “happy-go-lucky,” and perhaps even a bit mischievous – something that our college students can readily applaud.

Blow rejects the traditional approach to sexuality as sacred, as something that “restricts our understanding of the complexity of human sexuality.” How ironic! It is the media and the universities which have silenced and struck down any message counter to the rampant sexual permissiveness and experimentation. Does the university offer any talks on the value of chastity? On traditional marriage? Instead, such discussions are taboo, routinely screamed down, and even penalized. Meanwhile, polyamory and other unsustainable practices are given free range to entice the minds of the susceptible.

However, it is Blow’s and Cyrus’ message, loudly proclaimed on almost every campus, that has helped to unleash sexual experimentation – the exploration of one’s sexuality. One popular form of sexual exploration is, understandably, forceful, bodily, sexual proselytizing. Well, isn’t it natural enough?

Isn’t it true that everyone wants and needs sex? What then is the problem? Sexual taboos, of course! Well then, what’s wrong with penetrating through these taboos in a persuasive, although somewhat aggressive manner? Perhaps these sexual trend-setters have even convinced themselves that they are providing a needful service to their victims? After all, the pedophiles have convinced themselves of this – the children a better-off because of them!

Behavior can no more be separated from belief than life from blood. If our youth are taught the primacy of choice above everything else, they will exercise their choice, albeit harmfully. If they are taught that their nature should govern their behavior, they will act out according to their nature. However, if they are taught that they must govern their natural impulses, and when they do not, they violate heaven’s dictates, they will think twice. (Also, our law-makers and universities will think twice!) However, this has become the forbidden message, the message that must be silenced.  

Love: It’s Nature, Requirements, and Costs

How is it that the Bible demands justice for the innocent and the guilty, and yet, we all guilty before God (Rom. 3:10-20, 23)? Similarly, we are to love and forgive all, but yet our God – our role-model – has ordained a punitive justice system:

• For he [the magistrate and the criminal justice system] is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. (Rom. 13:4)

Many Christians are confused by this dilemma and consequently reject one of these two seemingly opposite positions - usually justice and its “sword.” However, this leads to unbalanced decision-making. We might forgive our attacker not press any charges. However, when the attacker attacks again, it will bring our faith into disrepute. The next victim will understandably accuse us: “Because you didn’t bring any charges, this enabled him to attack me! How foolish you are!”

How then can we rationally embrace what seem like irreconcilable opposites - love and justice? They are different yet complementary truths. If we love our children, we will punish them. If we fail to train them up in this manner, they fail to learn valuable and necessary lessons. If we fail to bring charges against our attacker, we neither love the attacker or our neighbor.

Sometimes, love requires causing discomfort. If our friend wants to take crack cocaine, love would require us to warn even if it will cause discomfort and charges that, “You are judging me!” If our neighbor is creating a fire hazard on his property, love might require us to warn of the potential consequences or even call the fire marshal to take punitive action.

Love requires justice, and justice requires love. However, the biblical teachings on the subject might sound contradictory. For example, Jesus had taught that forgiveness was both conditional and unconditional:

• CONDITIONAL: “So watch yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.” (Luke 17:3)

• UNCONDITIONAL: “And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins." (Mark 11:25)

This “contradiction” is resolved when we understand that there are two aspects of forgiveness (as love also takes many forms). While we should always pray for the offender and have a heart ready to forgive, restoration to fellowship (church) is a very different matter. Jesus taught that, unless the offender repents, he should not be restored:

• And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. (Mat. 18:17)

Restoration requires repentance. If you have a friend who has spread malicious lies about you, indeed, pray for him but do not reconcile until he repents. To do so would be to enable more of the same. This would not be love. Restoring a sinner to church without confession and a determination to leave behind the sin is not love but enablement.

God has established role distinctions. He has ordained the justice system to bring His wrath upon the evildoer.  Because God will punish through the courts, we need not be concerned about this task. This frees us up to love, as Paul had written:

• Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse…Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men.  If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.  Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath [Rom. 13:4]; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.” (Rom. 12:14, 17-19)

Because God “will repay,” we need not take justice into our own hands. After leaving wrath with God and the criminal justice system, we are freed to think about how we might be a blessing to the offender.

Although we are all guilty before God and therefore require His mercy, this doesn’t mean that we are guilty of a punishable criminal offense. Therefore, it is appropriate to talk about innocence and guilt – a critical distinction that God Himself makes (Exo. 23:7; Num. 5:31; Deut. 16:19; 19:10; 21:8; 25:1). He even insists that allowing the guilty to go free is no less an offense than convicting the innocent (Prov. 17:15).

This issue of love, and whether it entails warning and punishment is today on the cutting edge. We are called “hated-filled bigots” if we resist the gay agenda. However, we can lovingly respond that:

• If I would warn a friend against crack cocaine, should I not also warn against embracing the gay lifestyle, which is patently filled with many physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual costs? How does this make me a bigot?

If this reasoning is rejected, we find ourselves in the company of all of Israel’s Prophets and our Apostles and all the other righteous who had been vilified. But at least we know that we are walking in His light. Paul had warned:

• In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. (2 Tim. 3:12)

Therefore, do not be intimidated and pray that you might remain faithful.

Will the Real Homophobe Please Stand Up

Those of us who oppose Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) are routinely demeaned as “homophobes” – those who hate gays. And if you are a hater, then you shouldn’t have a voice. Therefore, any who disagree with SSM shouldn’t have a voice.

But do we really hate gays? One way to decide this question is to determine who actually causes harm to gays? Is it those who oppose SSM or those who promote it?

• According to a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control that analyzed data from 2011, approximately 62 percent of gay men who know they have HIV/AIDS do not use condoms when engaging in sexual relations. (LifeSiteNews)

If anyone hates gays, it is these 62%. However, it is not just these, but it’s also those who encourage homosexuality, claiming that the many costs that gays incur are just the result of social intolerance. Certainly, it is not intolerance that causes gays to lie about their health status. Nor is it intolerance that has caused the STD epidemic and attenuated lifespans among gays. Intolerance cannot explain the plethora of problems plaguing the gay lifestyle – mental health, substance abuse, suicide, and domestic violence issues.

We can also ask, “Who is it who really cares about gays – those who indulge them or those who warn them?” Of course, we Christians are accused of condemning gays to hell and of  treating them with contempt.

Against these charges, I try to explain that, however haltingly we might walk in the love that we profess, it is our duty to love the gays as Christ has loved us. Since we have learned that we are nothing without our Savior, we are in no position to look down on anyone else. (Although my assertion has never been met with applause, I want to set the record straight anyway.)

What then is love? Love is a commitment to the ultimate welfare of others. It speaks truth. Sometimes, it warns. However, it should never acquiesce to the establishment of an institution – SSM – that will further normalize a behavior that has already been so self-destructive.

Responding to Hatred: Loving the Unlovable

Recently, I received these responses to my essay, Homosexuality: The Costs:

• OH YOU ARE A GIANT DOUCHE FAGGOT, YOU ARE A FAGGY QUEENY DOUCHE, YOU NEED TO GO FUCK YOURSELF, CAUSE NO ONE ELSE TOUCHES YOU!

• Oh eat a bag of cock, go devour a pound of shit, you judgmental homophobic redneck cunt. I hope you sit on a cactus.

Here is my response:

I’m truly sorry that you feel this way. I can’t begin to understand the torment you’ve experienced.

Please know that, as a Christian, I don’t look down on you. I have plenty of my own struggles and weaknesses. In fact, just in case we are tempted to cop a self-righteous, haughty attitude, our Scriptures always remind us from where we have come. Morally speaking, many of us had been the worst of the worst (1 Cor. 1:26-29).

Even now, I find that I need to continually confess my sins and my less-than-loving attitudes. In this, I find great comfort and healing. If I care about you, I will also recommend that you too confess your sins, turn from them, and trust in our Savior.

Please don’t think that I mean to minimize the great sacrifice that you will be making. However, it is worth it. There is something far greater to be had. In many ways, our Lord encourages us to simply try Him out:

• Psalm 34:8-9 Taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in him. Fear the Lord, you his saints, for those who fear him lack nothing.

• John 7:17 If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

However, we all must make sacrifices for His sake and, ultimately, our own. I find that I have been so liberated and healed by following Him.

I would consider it a great honor to be able to answer any of your questions and even to be your friend.

(There is truly a great sense of peace and liberation in following our Lord in loving others, even the undeserving. This doesn’t mean that we cease being a light for His truth, but it does mean that any political or public activity that we pursue must not be at the expense of love.)

Brian McLaren, Islamophobia and a bit of Evangelophobia

When the world needs to firmly hold Islam to account for their violent reactions to an offensive anti-Islamic film, postmodern, emergent pastor-guru, Brian McLaren is pointing his accusing finger against Evangelicals: “We must begin to own up to the reality of evangelical Islamaphobia.”

After reciting a list of Evangelical voices McLaren regards as “Islamophobic,” he then asks:

• Will they [Islamophobic evangelical Christians] press on in their current path, letting Islamophobia spread even further amongst them? Or will they stop, rethink and seek to a more charitable approach to our Muslim neighbors? Will they realize that evangelical religious identity is under assault, not by Shariah law, not by the liberal media, not by secular humanism from the outside, but by forces within the evangelical community that infect that religious identity with hostility? 

McLaren fails to distinguish between what we believe about Islam and how we regard and treat individual Muslims. He therefore equates having negative ideas regarding this religion with “hate” and “Islamophobia” and a failure to love. However, maturity requires open eyes as we perform acts of love. We can love the criminal, but we can also dislike his behavior. Okay, this isn’t easy, but this is our calling, and it’s also necessary. Jesus would have us be as wise as serpents and gentle as lambs.

Instead, McLaren argues that love requires us to have a favorable impression of Islam:

• The broad highway of us-them thinking and the offense-outrage-revenge reaction cycle leads to self-destruction.

Of course, we must love the Muslim and seek their ultimate good. However, love never demands that we close our eyes to the dangers. We cannot abandon “us-them thinking.” Islam is not Christianity. And the Nazis weren’t Jews. Should the Jews have believed the best about the Nazis as they were being hauled away to extermination camps? Should Israel ignore Iran’s threats to destroy them in a nuclear conflagration? Must we only believe warm-fuzzies about the people we endeavor to help? Of course not!

According to Christianity Today, an average of 170,000 Christians are suffering martyrdom yearly, many of these in Islamic nations. Are we to close our eyes to this? Are we not to raise our voices against those who are doing this, even if it engenders more hostility? Does it also mean that we should remain silent in face of the suffering, much of which is Muslim on Muslim violence? Much we instead indulge the Muslim militants, lest they act-out in a more violent way? And won’t such indulgence undermine the moderates who are pushing for change?

Must the West blind themselves to the fact that Muslims remain a hostile minority? According to Western leaders, integrating Muslims into Western culture has proved an unqualified flop. Last year, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that the:

• …tendency had been to say, “Let’s adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side by side…” But this concept has failed and failed utterly.

Merkel is not alone in this assessment.  French President Nicolas Sarkozy joined the growing chorus. According to World (March 26, 2011, p.24):

• He made the statement in a televised debate…that efforts to accommodate religious and cultural differences were clearly a “failure.”

UK Prime Minister David Cameron had even stated,

• Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.

However, Cameron shouldn’t be too quick to assume all the blame. Their Muslim populations are merely following the Koran. According to a fatwa (judgment; # 59879; www.koranqa.com) Muslims are forbidden to take friends from among non-Muslims:

• Undoubtedly the Muslim is obliged to hate the enemies of Allaah and to disavow them, because this is the way of the Messengers and their followers. Allaah says:

[Surah 60:4] “Indeed there has been an excellent example for you in Ibraaheem (Abraham) and those with him, when they said to their people: ‘Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allaah, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred for ever until you believe in Allaah Alone’”

• Based on this, it is not permissible for a Muslim to feel any love in his heart towards the enemies of Allaah who are in fact his enemies too. Allaah says:

[Surah 60:1] “O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers and polytheists) as friends, showing affection towards them, while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth”

• But if a Muslim treats them with kindness and gentleness in the hope that they will become Muslim and will believe, there is nothing wrong with that, because it comes under the heading of opening their hearts to Islam. But if he despairs of them becoming Muslim, then he should treat them accordingly.

What does it mean to love the Islamic world? Does it mean to blind ourselves about its true nature and the problems that the West has encountered in trying to assimilate them? McLaren blames Christians for not having enough Muslim friends to enlighten them to the fact that Muslims can be very kind and hospitable.

Perhaps some of us are blind to this fact. However, being willfully blind to the worldwide phenomena of Islam doesn’t help. I think that it is important for Christians to be knowledgeable about Islam before entering into such friendships. They need to know about the doctrine of Taqiyya which authorizes Muslims to lie to the infidel in order to promote Islam, even if not all Muslims are so motivated.

Closing our eyes because of a liberal, mushy idea of love, is not love. If we are to love, we have to be understanding so that we will know how to love, to serve others according to their needs.

What is it that we need to know about Islam? While McLaren attributes Islamic violence and coercion to only “the tiny minority of Muslims who turn piety into violence,” the evidence suggests that it is endemic to their sacred texts – the Koran and the Hadiths. Consequently, the entire Islamic world – and this includes the Islamic community in the West – has a strong tendency towards violence and coercion.

The recent uprisings even serve as evidence of this fact. It is not only the irresponsible exercise of free speech that incurs bloodshed but any criticism of Islam. If we are going to enter into friendships with Muslims, we need to be aware of this.

However, McLaren derides the fact that Christians seek to become knowledgeable about the people who live next door:

• Many who are pastors and leaders in evangelicalism hide their heads in the current issue of Christianity Today or World Magazine…in the complicity of evangelicalism in Islamophobia.

While McLaren condemns what he calls “Islamophobia” – the judging and hating of Islam – it seems that he is very ready to judge and condemn Christians. Perhaps we should call it a bit of “Evangeliphobia.”

Hate-Mongers should be Shot, shouldn’t They?

A man posing as an intern shot the guard, Leo Johnson, at the Family Research Council (FRC), a Christian group promoting pro-life and traditional marriage, located in Washington DC. According to LifeSiteNews.com:

• The suspect, a 28-year-old male from Virginia named Floyd Lee Corkins II, said, “Don’t shoot me, it was not about you, it was what this place stands for.” AP later confirmed that Corkins is a liberal activist who volunteers with a left-wing group in the D.C. area.

• “The FBI said Corkins had 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches, a Sig Sauer 9mm pistol, two additional magazines loaded with ammunition and an additional box of 50 rounds of ammunition when he came into the building.”

Corkins evidently intended to kill many. Boston.com adds:

• Corkins who had been volunteering recently at a community center for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, made a negative comment about the organization’s activity before the shooting.

This shooting should not be regarded as simply the work of one man. The media has fanned the flames of hatred by insisting that the FRC and other groups like it are “hate organizations.” About three hours about the FRC shooting the Huffington Press referred to the “Family Research Council, which the Southern Poverty Law Center deems a hate group.” 

Why a “hate group?” Simply because the FRC opposes gay marriage! Sadly, the mainstream media is all too happy to support this demeaning characterization. One way that media does this is through unbalanced reporting. When a gay is victimized, the media gives the story full coverage. However, when the tables are reversed – and they often are – the media is relatively silent. NewsBusters reports that:

• ABC was the only broadcast network that offered a full story on the FRC office shooting on Wednesday night. They led with the story and gave it two and a half minutes. None of the network newscasts reported the breaking detail that shooter Floyd Corkins volunteered for six months at the D.C. Center for the LGBT Community, adding depth to his political motivation.

What is the effect of this unbalanced reporting? Christians are unfairly seen as victimizers, “bigots,” and “hate mongers.” This fuels hatred and the faulty notion that the church is depriving gays of their basic “human rights.”

It is these unbalanced and misleading characterizations that have placed a gun in the hands the Floyd Lee Corkins and have told them that they are performing a righteous service.

According to LifeSiteNews,

• His parents told the FBI that Corkins “has strong opinions with respect to those he believes do not treat homosexuals in a fair manner.”

From where did Corkins get this notion that those who favor traditional marriage “do not treat homosexuals in a fair manner?” We are against all sexual intercourse outside of marriage, not just homosexual sex. We are also against any marriage that is not between a single man and woman. Does this make us “hate-mongers?” Should we therefore be fair game for the pedophile, the adulterer, the bigamist, or the polygamist, or anyone else who objects that we don’t approve of their behavior?

Are we “hate-mongers” because we don’t approve of lying, cheating and stealing? Should we be shot-up because we would vote for laws against libel, robbery and perjury, or are we only despicable because we oppose gay marriage?

Today, many in the media construe their roles as “social activists” and not “truth activists.” If there is anything to be an activist for, it is for the truth. If there is any flagpole around which we can all rally, it is the truth. If there is any basis for unity, it is around the truth. If there is anything that can restore the nation’s faith in the media and the government, it is a zeal for the truth. Unless the media can regain its proper vision, it will continue to loose respect and will gain as an agent of division.

The White House, its Pride and Prejudice

The White House has just released the Presidential Proclamation: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2012

In regards to LGBTs, it proudly proclaims that “no one is a second-class citizen, no one is denied basic rights, and all of us are free to live and love as we see fit.”

This proclamation is based upon the belief that LGBTs have the right to receive legal recognition and support in marriage. However, if the White House is really serious about its claim that “no one is a second-class citizen, no one is denied basic rights, and all of us are free to live and love,” it must also strike down laws against adultery, open marriages, polygamy and pedophilia. Hasn’t the law also relegated these people to a “second-class” status? And so, isn’t it hypocritical for the administration to complain about LGBTs as “second-class citizen[s],” while turning its back on the rest? This is reminiscent of our Declaration’s proclamation that “all, are created equal,” while the African American remained in chains.

The administration justifies its stance by appealing to the Golden Rule: “treat others the way we want to be treated.” While this is a sound principle, it has its limitations, especially when it comes to law. I don’t think that human rights should by extended to pedophiles to seduce minors – even when the minor is amenable - nor to the billionaire who wants to marry 100 young girls. There are certain behaviors and lifestyles that government should not promote. In fact, every law that we have on the books is a statement about certain behaviors that government will not tolerate, and many for good reason. (Perhaps NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s assault against soft drinks is a notable exception.)

Sadly, those who stand in the way of this modernistic, permissive understanding of “human rights” are equated with bigots:

• I call upon the people of the United States to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists, and to celebrate the great diversity of the American people

The White House would not have been so dismissive, intolerant, and polarizing if it had instead written that it desired its own philosophy to prevail for such-and-such reasons. However, it has divisively taken the stance that the opposing opinions represent “prejudice.”

This language is inflammatory. It signals that those who hold such opinions are prejudiced and should be silenced. Thus the call to “eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists!”

All of this is done in the name of “human rights.” However, this administration fails to acknowledge that our human rights find their origin in our Creator, as specified in the Declaration of Independence:

• All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…

If government has the authority to grant such rights, it also has the authority to repeal them. This of course would mean that our rights aren’t “unalienable,” but conditioned upon the whim of those in power. Subsequently, whatever government deems as right, is right, if there is no higher Authority – the absolute Law-Giver. And according to no traditional religion has He established the right of SSM.

However, this administration is making its “human rights” appeal to the nations of the world based upon principles that necessarily transcend those nations and their traditions and legal codes they want to change. Therefore, this administration is speaking for God without any proof that it has the authority or authorization to do so.

And it is not just those who are in opposition who are being tarred with the label of “prejudice.” This policy also represents a charge against the Book that supports this “prejudice.” Indeed, the Apostle Paul had warned:

• Therefore God gave them [those who rejected Him] over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. (Romans 1:24-29

Such writing and thinking is now labeled “prejudice,” even though every major traditional religion would agree with Paul’s stance. It also reflects the modernistic chauvinism that “What we believe represents progress over former ideas.”

If the Bible’s teaching in favor of traditional marriage exclusively is bigoted, then there needs to be some open and public discussion on the subject. However, our permissive society is increasingly intolerant of such discussion. Even worse, we are now equated with “Nazis,” who must be silenced.

Oddly, the release concludes by invoking “our Lord”:

• I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord…

One can only wonder, “Which Lord is ‘our Lord?’”